The Founding Fathers of this great nation designed a Republican form of government. By this, they meant a government under the rule of law and not the capricious rule of man, under a written constitution whose main function is to clearly demarcate the limits of authority of the federal government. This constitution contains the principle of separation of power between the three branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — and a further check on authority, a principle of balance of power, not only between the three aforementioned branches, but also between the federal government and those of the respective states. These series of checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution prevent the usurpation of power by any one branch of government, or the outright establishment of tyranny of the majority (i.e., mob rule) at the expense of weaker minorities.

But a Republican form of government was created and intended for a vigilant and informed citizenry, who would keep a watchful eye on the government and jealously guard their liberties like precious jewels. Failure to maintain this watch, would lead to the leveling of society, the erosion of individual liberty, and the loss of the Republic.

The U.S. Founding Fathers created for Americans a Constitutional Republic, which they considered a moderate form of government, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 after the defeat of the British army in the American Revolution. The American Founders, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Ben Franklin and the other well-known patriots, rejected direct democracy as a government subject to mass demagoguery, a government directed not by the judicious rule of law, but by the capricious rule of man.(1)

And thus, James Madison (photo, right), the Master Builder of the Constitution, wrote, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."(2)

So when the Founding Fathers drafted the American Constitution they incorporated the thoughts of Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University of Edinburgh, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

And so, to protect the young Republic from falling prey to majoritarian mass democracy, the founders added further checks such as the Electoral College process, rather than the popular election of president and vice president.

They also established, for example, in Article V, two exacting processes for Amending the Constitution, including the requirement of two-thirds Congressional and three-fourths state ratification majorities, rather than simple majorities; Treaties approved by two-thirds of the Senate; Impeachment by majority vote in the House of Representatives but Conviction by two-thirds super majority of the Senate; the power of the veto in the hands of the president that can only be overwritten by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, etc.

Because of the wisdom of the U.S. Founders in establishing a representative Constitutional Republic rather than a mass Democracy, these United States have been blessed with the freedom and prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's precisely because of the American Constitution with its checks and balances, separation of powers, provisions for limited governance (with protection for individual rights), and indirect representation for the election of president and vice president — that we have enjoyed fruits of political stability and economic prosperity, almost uninterruptedly for 200 years.

Other types of government — "people's republics," social democracies, and dictatorships of majoritarian or oligarchical leanings — have come and gone, blown by the winds of instability, oppression and/or economic failure. Not so for the American Constitutional Republic — it has grown strong, navigating steadily through rough seas while the governments of other nations wrecked and perished. And so have floundered great empires, such as the Empire of Japan, the USSR, Mussolini's Fascist Total State in Italy, but the great U.S.A. is still here, still a beacon of freedom in the world.

The American Founding Fathers chose this type of government because of their vast knowledge of history, philosophic consideration, and almost instinctively, because they also understood unchanging human nature. In their wisdom and their vast knowledge of history (particularly their expressed knowledge of events leading to the fall of Athenian democracy and the death knell of the Roman Republic, which had after nearly five centuries fallen prey to demagoguery and mobocracy), the U.S. Founders gave Americans a representative Republican government, a moderate government, enshrined in a Republic that has been resilient, enduring, and tested.

In 1787 when the Framers finally completed the Constitution, it was — and remains — the greatest document ever drafted for self-governance, written by the hearts and minds of men but inspired by the wisdom of the ages, if not the hand of Nature's God. When a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, what kind of government have you given us? He replied judiciously, "A republic, Ma'am, it you can keep it."(1)

As left-of-center Democrats, most of who consider themselves liberals or moderates, and right-of-center Republicans, most of whom call themselves moderates or conservatives, it would be wise to pause and consider two propositions. First is the derivation of the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans," not only in American but also in world history; they were not the names of American parties created in a vacuum, but derived in references to the ancient Athenian democracy of the Greeks and ancient Republic of the Romans. The modern U.S. Democratic Party evolved directly from the Jacksonian Democracy ushered in by President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837). The Republican Party comes down to us as the Grand Old Party (GOP) of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865). Their names, nevertheless, reveal their origins and derivations of political ideals.

Secondly, we should consider those party labels and concepts, and in terms of history consider where we have been and where we are headed. And as we contemplate the position of the pendulum of political power, swinging from right to left, should we ask ourselves, is it still oscillating?

I believe the pendulum is suspended in the political left, regardless of the political party in power. The Democrat Party is now at the range of the European Social Democrats, espousing more and more socialism without saying so, calling it disingenuously "fairness," political progress, or "consensus-building"!

And what about the Republicans? Scared of the power of the mainstream media, which is very liberal and in general fairly tilted to the left in the political spectrum, the center of the party is frightened of its own shadow. Nevertheless, Republicans, Libertarians, and Objectivists (i.e., the political philosophy of Ayn Rand [1905-1982; photo, left] the great Russian-American author, novelist and thinker) believe the functions of government to be limited to those immediately enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and espoused in the Declaration of Independence: the protection of life, liberty, and property, so that we can all pursue our own health and happiness! The Democrats would like nothing more than to change the constitution into a malleable "living document," that ends up meaning nothing and can be violated at will for their modern political philosophy, which is wealth redistribution and power to the state at the expense of the individual liberty!

The new dynamo of the GOP is on the right, the Tea Party movement, and thus the media has done its best to abuse, disabuse, and discredit the movement with untrue aspersions of its own creation. The Tea Party is instructive for it has aspects of conservatism, libertarianism, and Objectivism — all philosophic concepts of the right. It is considered "dangerous" by statist critics because it may bring victory to conservative Republicans, but not because of anarchistic tendencies, far from it. In words and deeds, American Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Democrat Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi, are way closer to the ideals of Social Democracy and Marxism than Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) are closer to anarchism and Mikhail Bakunin (you will learn about this man and the extreme right in Part III of this series). The Tea Party simply stands for maximum individual liberty with responsibility, government limited by the shackles of the Constitution, individual autonomy, minimalist taxation, foreign policy dictated only by our own best national interest, and legal immigration. As to the leftism and wealth redistribution schemes of the Democratic party, consider how much of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto have become entrenched in our political, social, and economic life.

I invite you to peruse my article on this subject entitled "Freedom — Liberty versus Equality (Part I)" posted on this website. Those readers, who have so far now read the first two parts of this "Political Spectrum" series, may not have failed to notice the observation that Republican forms of government tend to attract men imbued with laws, methods and procedures, and often willing to negotiate and compromise, as to run the ship of state. Mass democracies in history frequently tend to inspire popular demagogues who make promises and pander to the people as to curry favor with the voting electorate and gain power. Sometimes these democrats are good men who devote themselves to the general welfare; occasionally they are even wise; more often they are mediocrities who do their best. Not infrequently these "public servants" are imperious, self-serving, even corrupt men, who violate the trust the public has placed in their offices. Republican and democratic forms of government limit the damage mediocrities or venal men can do because their power is limited. But as we have seen in "Part I: The Totaliarian Left from Communism to Social Democracy," totalitarian states and communist regimes, the worst men imbued with hatred, evil and megalomania, men who brutally eliminate their perceived political opposition (including former friends and foes alike) and use police state terror — ascend to and attain absolute power, precisely because they are the most ruthless. And once in power, only their deaths can end the ghastly collectivist nightmares and their reigns of totalitarian terror.

I will end now by inviting the reader to further investigate on their own the freedom philosophies of the Right, Objectivism and Libertarianism. Scholarly and popular articles on these political philosophies are today much in vogue and abound. Let us just say that I believe that the old Classical Liberalism of Great Britain in the 19th century led down the road to the modern American conservatism and libertarianism of today. And when England ruled the seas at the time of Queen Victoria, Classical Liberalism, in my opinion, reached its apogee, when both the Conservative Party of Benjamin Disraeli (i.e., the Tories) and the Liberal Party of William Gladstone (photo, above with Gladstone on left and Disraeli on right) ruled alternatively the British empire, a free and prosperous empire where the sun never set, and Britannia ruled the waves! And these United States of America is her natural heir!

2) No one was more responsible for our form of government than James Madison, and thus to the interested reader, I recommend: James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham. 1990. A comprehensive and honest biography of the U.S. Constitution's Master Builder.

Written by Dr. Miguel A. Faria

Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. is a former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine; Former member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology (2004-2010); Member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology International (2011-present); Recipient of the Americanism Medal from the Nathaniel Macon Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) 1998; Ex member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002-05; Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002); Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

An edited version of this article was published on October 14, 2011 at GOPUSA.com.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. The Political Spectrum (Part II) — The Center: A Democracy or a Constitutional Republic? HaciendaPublishing.com, October 14, 2011. Available from: http://haciendapublishing.com/articles/political-spectrum-part-ii-%E2%80%94-center-democracy-or-constitutional-republic

Why? What’s the point? Just because we have the right? Just because it’s important?If that’s all you’ve got go offer, then please stay home. The country is in enough trouble without turning it over to voters without a clue. How do you decide who and what issues to support?

Do you look for the “D”, “R”, or “I” to guide you? Then don’t bother. Do you look for any familiar looking name and pull the lever? Then don’t bother.

Do you flip a coin or do “enny, menny, miny, moe?” Then don’t bother. If the list is alphabetical, do you just go with the first or “best” sounding name? Then don’t bother.

Do you look around for help of a clue? Then don’t bother.
Have you ever read the U.S. and State Constitutions? If not, then don’t vote. Do you know the pros and cons of each candidate or issue? If not, then don't vote. Do you pay attention to national, State, and local news? If not, then don’t vote.

Do you know the names and political affiliation of the President, Vice-president, and any cabinet members? Can you name your Congressman, Senator, Governor, State legislative representatives, or Mayor?

Do you know the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals and which ones are typically Democrats, Republicans, Tories, Liberationists, or Abolitionists?

Unfortunately, far too many citizens cannot correctly answer even one of two of my questions. The danger to our nation does not come from non-voters. It comes from low information voters who have no clue. The Macon Telegraph, March 14, 2016

I learned in school and always thought most countries were both democratic and also a republic. I was not aware of the difference between the two types of governments. But now after reading this article I do understand the difference and the importance of these two terms. the political class commingle these terms for their own political purposes.

I believe that the work of Jonathan Haidt correlates well with your horseshoe spectrum.

On the far left ideology is driven primarily by Haidt's "Authority" foundation. On the far right it is driven primarily by the Haidt's "Liberty" foundation.

Foundations are added as one moves toward the top of the horseshoe. All six foundations are found in equal balance at top dead center.

Your horseshoe shape is an innovation that is very useful. It helps to solve a difficulty I'd been having with my own conceptualization of the political spectrum, which I described in the publication The Independent Whig. Toward a More Accurate Political Spectrum, November 15, 2012 — The independent Whig

I read your articles, and there are some good theoretical ideas in them. I prefer my conception of the political spectrum for various reasons, including the necessity for the shape of a horseshoe with its necessary gap, and the meaning therein.

Moreover, I believe the theoretical and real-to-life mechanics of governance and subtle differences between left and right of center are important, as I have described.

The lumping together and kindred (malevolent) spirit of the extreme left collectivist systems, must be explained as well as the defining characteristics of the right individualistic philosophies.

The narrow gap of the horseshoe, bridged by an unstable state of anarchic-tyranny is obligatory, and it is explained by two different methodologies: One is the deceiving revolutionary ferment of the extremes, left (i.e., social revolutionaries and communists) and right (i.e., anarchists), which frequently unite to overthrow the status quo. The other is the actual state of anarchic-tyranny — i.e., revolutionary violence and even terror countered by State repression and counter-terror to suppress the insurrection, events frequently exploited by agent provocateurs for their own purposes — during revolution and crisis.

Finally, the history behind the different political systems in the context of the political spectrum is also paramount. We need to know where we have been to ascertain where we are headed! — MAF

"When troubles had once begun in the cities, those who followed carried the revolutionary spirit further and further, and determined to outdo the report of all who had preceded them by the ingenuity of their enterprises and the atrocity of their revenges. The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man. A conspirator who wanted to be safe was a recreant in disguise. The lover of violence was always trusted, and his opponent suspected. He who succeeded in a plot was deemed knowing, but a still greater master in craft was he who detected one. On the other hand, he who plotted from the first to have nothing to do with plots was a breaker up of parties and a poltroon who was afraid of the enemy. In a word, he who could outstrip another in a bad action was applauded, and so was he who encouraged to evil one who had no idea of it. The tie of party was stronger than the tie of blood, because a partisan was more ready to dare without asking why. (For party associations are not based upon any established law, nor do they seek the public good; they are formed in defiance of the laws and from self-interest.) The seal of good faith was not divine law, but fellowship in crime. If an enemy when he was in the ascendant offered fair words, the opposite party received them not in a generous spirit, but by a jealous watchfulness of his actions. Revenge was dearer than self-preservation. Any agreements sworn to by either party, when they could do nothing else, were binding as long as both were powerless. But he who on a favourable opportunity first took courage, and struck at his enemy when he saw him off his guard, had greater pleasure in a perfidious than he would have had in an open act of revenge; he congratulated himself that he had taken the safer course, and also that he had overreached his enemy and gained the prize of superior ability. In general the dishonest more easily gain credit for cleverness than the simple for goodness; men take a pride in the one, but are ashamed of the other." — Thucydides on the Revolutions and patterns of terror in the struggle among the Greek city-states between the party of Democrats, who were allied to Athens, and the oligarchs who followed Sparta during the upheaval of the war, Thucydides, on Revolution in The Peloponnesian War, pp. 198-199.

"There was every crime which men could commit in revenge who had been governed not wisely, but tyrannically, and now had the oppressor at their mercy. There were the dishonest designs of others who were longing to be relieved from their habitual poverty, and were naturally animated by a passionate desire for their neighbour's goods; and there were crimes of another class which men commit, not from covetousness, but from the enmity which equals foster towards one another until they are carried away by their blind rage into the extremes of pitiless cruelty." — Thucydides on the Revolutions and patterns of terror in the struggle among the Greek city-states between the party of Democrats, who were allied to Athens, and the oligarchs who followed Sparta during the upheaval of the war, The Peloponnesian War, p. 201.

"Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions... The worst forms of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." — Politics, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

The National Park Service has decided to have the bust of President Obama carved on Mount Rushmore, at Keystone, South Dakota.

What has President Obama done, I wonder, to be included among the true giants — i.e., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln — carved at MT Rushmore? Nothing. The economy remains in shambles, American prestige is at a nadir, there are more people on welfare than ever, the national debt stands at $15 trillion — but he did get re-elected by a bare majority of democrats and sycophants!

Why wasn't Ronald Reagan the recipient of this honor? After all he restored faith in the nation, brought prosperity for all, forced down the Berlin Wall, and precipitated the collapse of the evil empire and Soviet communism.

I would have opposed (with different levels of intensity depending on merits) the attribution of this honor to any president other than Reagan in the last 50 years.

Once again a dubious honor for President Barack Obama, just like the Nobel Peace Prize, given for what he was to accomplished, but never did, and did not deserve!

Well, he is the first black president. And in our politically correct environment, despite his failures of leadership and presidency, the Ministry of Truth of our omniscient government and lapdog media, he has (and continues) to be judged not by the content of his character or achievements but by the color of his skin!

So unless the NPS's decision is reversed by a Congress that refuses to see the invisible clothes worn by the emperor, Obama's bust will be on Mount Rushmore by 2015!

I have received the following communication from my friend Laida Carro, Cuban-American human rights activist:

November 12, 2012

Actual Cuban-American Vote Result: Romney 58% -Obama 42%

Results show a reduction in support for the Republican candidate, but not the dramatic shift incorrectly predicted by some exit polls.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A scientific analysis of the actual voting results in Miami-Dade County show that Governor Mitt Romney bested President Barack Obama 58-42% among Cuban-American voters. This does represents a 6% gain for President Obama from 2008, but not of the magnitude predicted by some exit polls.

Obama campaign officials in Florida have stated (Financial Times, 11/8/12) that Governor Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, whose past voting record included support for unilaterally lifting sanctions against the Cuban dictatorship, created skepticism among some Cuban-Americans and gave them an opening to make a case on economic and social issues.

"While Congressman Ryan's position on Cuba policy had evolved years before the election (in 2007), it certainly created suspicion among some Cuban-American voters," said Mauricio Claver-Carone, Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp.

"The Obama campaign took full advantage of the opening created by the Ryan pick."

The scientific analysis was conducted by Dr. Dario Moreno and Dr. Kevin Hill and commissioned by Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp.

Below is the Summary Memo of their findings:

Mitt Romney under-performed among Cuban American voters in Miami-Dade County. President Obama won Miami-Dade County by an increase majority in 2012 over 2008. In 2008, Barack Obama received 499,831 votes in Miami-Dade County compared to 360,551 for the Republican candidate Senator John McCain. Obama's margin of victory was 139,280 votes. This year Obama improved his vote total in Miami Dade to 540,776 compared to 332,602 for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Obama increased his margin of victory to 208,174. In order words Obama won Miami-Dade County in 2012 by 68,884 more votes than in 2008.

The Obama campaign and several exit polls (Fox News and Pew) claimed that Obama improved his showing in Miami-Dade County by winning the Cuban American poll 49% to 47%. Bendixen & Amandi International, a Democratic polling firm that has worked for Obama, found a slightly different but still significant breakdown of Cuban-American support, with 48 percent for Obama and 52 percent for Romney. While, there is little doubt that Obama improved his showing among Cuban American voters from the 36% he received in 2008, we found the difference a little less dramatic.

Professor Kevin Hill and I did an ecological regression of large Cuban precincts in Miami-Dade County and found that the Cuban Americans voted for Romney 58% to 42%. This results includes the over 50,000 Absentee ballots submitted by Cuban-Americans over sixty in Miami-Dade County that were not captured by Fox News and Pew exit polling. This demographic is traditionally the most Republican demographic in Miami-Dade. There was a significant reduction in Cuban American support for the Republican candidate but not as dramatic as the exit poll found.

Further thoughts on those in the middle who straddled the fence but chose in the end to vote for Obama: Admittedly, my assessment of a GOP victory may have been wishful thinking for the reasons I previously stated, and I was wrong. I underestimated the sincerity and idealism or perhaps egoism of the younger generation and their preference for dependence and government handouts, rather than preference for the old virtues, self-reliance, hard work and individualism.

I also vastly overestimated the intelligence of the older generation in considering the destruction of the country by debt and profligate spending and the need for fiscal sanity; obviously they chose to follow their own cupidity, and what the government can do for them, rather than what they can do for themselves and their country.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

"O'Brien, the disarmingly avuncular Party operative in charge of Winston Smith's torture and interrogation, informed his helpless charge that 'we are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us...We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him." ---The New American (1999 article) commenting on George Orwell, 1984.

...5. Crushing Optimism. When, in 1980, Ronald Reagan put the GOP on the path of optimism and economic growth, he not only won two landslide elections, he also changed the political landscape for three decades.

When Romney did offer a plan, it was about "hard truths," such as tackling the deficit, cutting the debt, cutting the budget (killing Big Bird), and cutting Medicare.

What happened to the Grand Old Party that once advocated cutting taxes and spurring economic growth — ideas espoused by the late Jack Kemp and people like Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Newt Gingrich, Mike Reagan, and others?

This is the party most Americans and I identify with...

8. Dissing Hispanics. As the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and now 2012 have demonstrated, demographics are trumping ideology in national elections.

The Republican Party has a difficult time grasping this concept. Romney seemingly ignored this truth by taking an ultra-hardline on immigration — one so tough he called for the "self deportation" of illegal immigrants. Not only is such a plan impractical and immoral, it is unacceptable politically, as yesterdays' results proved.

Consider that Obama reneged on his promise to Hispanics to make their concerns a priority. They were there for the GOP's taking.

The one Hispanic group that has voted consistently for Republicans — Cuban-Americans — gave Obama a record number of votes this year.

Already the liberal spinmeisters are blaming the tea party and conservatives for Romney's loss. The facts show the claim is not true.

The success Romney did achieve was due to their support. Romney's loss was due to a concoction of things involving the candidate himself, his team, his strategy, and his decisions.

I have received the following letter of interest to the readers (Nov. 26, 2012):

Re. Why Romney lost the election, I have read many articles and the answers seem to be varied from the voters who did not show up because the Republican computer system failed the last day to cultural differences, generational differences, to blame Romney, to the fact that the Republicans did not know how to fight the Chicago political machine, from someone who is well connected to know.

To me there should not have even been a question about whom to vote for. It should have been a landslide for Romney. To me that gets to the bottom of the issue. The orientation of the population has changed. There are not as many people who really understand democracy. We are living in an age of realism and materialism not idealism. The history of civilization goes through phases of idealism and realism. Also, unfortunately, you may have to lose something to
appreciate it. We are living in a country where most people take democracy and their liberty for granted. What they do not understand is that you have to keep fighting for it every day to keep it safe from those who want to destroy it for their own interests and power.

To shape the future we need a clear understanding of the past. In the wake of the result last night, I penned my take [which was quoted in part and the link posted above].
Christopher Ruddy
President & CEO
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Hi Chris,

I just wanted to let you know I read your editorial and agree substantially, particularly points 1, 5, and 8. Thanks for sending it. I believe besides the usual politics, socialism has seduced the American people and very, very hard days lie ahead for the nation. Who is going to continue to pull the cart in which so many of our countrymen are riding?

The wisdom of the sages reverberate in our age:

"History is strewn with the wreckage of man and of nations lured to their destruction by the bait of something for nothing -- lured by smoothly planned appeals to the criminal tendencies that are dormant and unrecognized in almost everybody. And the lure succeeded only because its true nature was invariably hidden under a barrage of righteous propaganda." --- F.L. Maus

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy...always followed by a dictatorship."---Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, University of Edinburgh (1714-1778) [and abbreviated version is also attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.]

As you know, I joined the party of John Galt long ago. I will remain buried in my books, hunt and fish, and cultivate my garden, seeking solace and solitude in nature inured to the age and the bad times ahead. In private moments like Boethius I will find consolation in philosophy and history.

I wish you continued success at the helm of Newsmax Media

Your friend,

Dr. Miguel Faria

Thanks Miguel. We are moving down the Road to Serfdom!
I hope to see you two here in Florida!

He was given great privileges and accolades, the august Presidency of the United States by Americans and the Nobel Peace Prize by the world, a Nobel Prize for achievements that he would achieve or at least strive toward achieving, but did not even came close to accomplish. Great expectations squandered!

And he was given more advantages even before he became President or even U.S. senator: Barack Obama was given the editorship of the Harvard Law Review without having written anything as expected and required by a purported legal scholar.

As U.S. Senator (D-Ill) and then as President of the U.S.A., he received accolades and given kudos by the media that he did not deserve!

Yes, he has squandered his four years in office and should be denied a second term in the Oval Office for many reasons.
Here is a brief summary of his Presidential record:

Prolonged economic misery, tripling of the national debt because of profligate government spending, authorization of illegal detention of U.S. citizens while pandering to illegal aliens; challenging the rulings of the states on ObamaCare (not even authorized in the Constitution; health care being a state, not a federal prerogative) and illegal immigration (while in turn siding with the godless U.N.); loss of a high-tech spy plane to Iran, which taunted us for national and foreign policy incompetence, etc.

The economy still has a long way to go but, with a press and news media who have relinquished their touted responsibility of reporting the news and becoming a lapdog media to the Obama administration and treating Obama as an enlightened despot– what can we expect?

The real estate market has floundered and remains smoldering; many Americans have lost their nest eggs for retirement– their homes...Foreclosures remain in the stratosphere...

Gas has double since the end of Bush's term at nearly $4.00 a gallon, and Obama refused to let America drill or even transport our oil, so we depend on our enemies...

Dereliction of duty as we have just recently seen displayed in the tragedy and travesty in Benghazi, Libya, where a U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were in the consulate killed by presidential inaction and incompetence.

"Fast and Furious," illegal arms sold to Mexican drug cartels by the corrupt ATF and the Dept. of Justice (now an oxymoron) barely reported by the main stream press- the scandal of the decade, suppressed as much as it can be suppressed!

"Treason doth never prosper: what 's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington (1561–1612).

With the U.N., Obama has tried and will try again to bypass the U.S. Constitution and restrict the rights of Americans to own guns and self-defense as I have indicated in "America Guns and Freedom."

The budget deficit continues to climb with profligate government spending on the backs of productive taxpayers...The national debt has ascended to astronomical heights endangering the future welfare of our children.

Our country is falling into a black hole because of those programs, and the way they were administered and continue to be poorly implemented! Paraphrasing Louis Brandeis, A great danger to our Republic is the insidious encroachment of our liberties and pocketbooks by men of zeal and good intentions but little understanding of their own socialist mentality and the dependency they engender in those who receive their help.

And while it is true the media has reluctantly reported some of this, there is a big difference in reporting and then giving breathing room to the president to recover by dwelling on celebrities, sport figures and trivialities. Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran-Contra), George W. Bush ("WMD not found!"), etc., were given no such respite but they were hammered continuously as to hamper their respective agendas!

When is investigative journalism going to finally scoop the truth about Obama, or even report the news about his administration's blunders, incompetence– or worse, I wonder?

And if President Obama wins with a Democratic House and Senate in tow, there will indeed be no limit to the authoritarian despotism he will implement on the back of the taxpayers, beginning with 15,000 new IRS agents, a swarm of officers to sap our substance and attempts at implementation of draconian gun control, efforts aimed at the elimination of the Electoral College, and the gradual establishment of a social democracy, as in Europe!

Frankly, Obama and the socialist wreckers must be defeated at the polls or it will be the death knell of this great Republic.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, began at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change in ministries, too plainly proves a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson

Vote for Mitt Romney and the Republican saviors Nov 6. America, you graciously gave Barack Obama and the Democrats a chance in 2008 and they frankly blew it. Vote them out!

My, I couldn’t agree more with your article. I am out of country, and it is currently Wednesday morning here but still Tuesday the 6th in the States. I voted early however. $6 trillion out of a total of $16 trillion debt, over $1 trillion deficit every year, 1.5% GDP, loss of AAA credit rating by S&P, higher unemployment every year than under Bush despite/because of big businesses bailouts spell economic failure. Despite having the House (2 years), the Senate, and the fawning media, Obama has failed America miserably.
Whether Obama’s failure was intentional or due to his unheralded inefficiency, I do not know with certainty yet; however, that he has failed the people of America is undeniable. His socialist healthcare alone would be reason enough to turn one against Obama, since he rammed this through a lickspittle congress against overwhelming public disapproval. I am in Australia now, and everyone I have talked with has their own private health insurance at their own expense, despite already paying for public healthcare with their taxes. Moreover, how can we trust the govt with our healthcare when they have stolen our retirement (SSI)?
As you point out, Obama has refused to follow the law and even stated so regarding illegal immigration despite holding the highest office of the executive branch. He will be fired for dereliction of duty today, hopefully. Let us hope that the American people have had enough suffering for now and we throw out the cause of our suffering—Obama.
Good article and best wishes for America.

By popular demand, here is my review of 2016 Obama's America (2012) by Dinesh D' Souza and John Sullivan, which I posted on Amazon.com a couple of days ago and takes into account the partisan melee among the posted reviews at that site:

The observant reviewers -- who have pointed out the inconsistency of so many trashy one star review ratings about a well-done, artistic, thoroughly documented documentary - show that man can be an unfair, political animal. In the case of the background and performance of President Barack Obama, the unfairness has been taken to extremes by his apologists. Frankly, these "reviewers" have not been intellectually honest and have given bad ratings to a masterful documentary they could not have seen, or if they have, they plainly rated it dishonestly. And that is a shame!

We can disagree about the ultimate political bent of the film, but not about the documentation of hard, cold facts that can be checked out plainly by those who do not fear facing cold reality. The documentary is in fact very fair to Obama - revealing but not shocking, informing while entertaining. It may be too cerebral for some who have become too used to the Jerry Springer-type of sensationalism or Rousseauian emotionalism. But some intellectual challenge is occasionally needed for something as serious as a presidential contest approaching and an incumbent president who despite a mediocre performance, has been sheltered and shielded by the American press and media.

Because of the political polarization of this documentary, this film will be most helpful to those who consider themselves centrists and independents. It is an essential film for those who are still undecided. As I have noted, Democrats are panning these movies not only for what it reveals, but for what they think it reveals. Many Republicans do not think this movie goes far enough in exposing all the revelations, but have nevertheless given it the commendable good ratings it deserves.

And because detractors of President Obama have been unfairly labeled in some cases "Neanderthals" or racists by partisan Democrats, it should be noted the executive producer, co-director, and co-writer of this film is Dinesh D'Souza, not an "angry white male," but an Indian-born intellectual, an eminent college president.

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza and associates should be commended for carrying out a masterful piece of investigative journalism and producing an exemplary documentary, doing the homework that should have been performed by the mainstream media at least since to 2008 and which the American press still refuses to carry out, even as we approach the momentous November 2012 Presidential U.S.elections. My Rating: 5 stars without reservation. MAF

Great and educational article. As always I Learn so much from your love of history.
Too bad we don't have more of 'you' to represent us in our government. They could all use an education.
God Bless our country.
uneed

I am glad you like the article. Let's hope that we can keep our Republic! In Part I, I showed the derivation of Social Democracy and it is not pretty---Marxism! Part III will be arcane stuff to some readers, but it will be very interesting: the Anarchistic extreme Right! My pleasure, MAF

I must admit Ben, I also enjoy Eric Clapton's old songs, when he was with Cream (e.g. , "Strange Brew"), "Lay Down Sally," etc.

But it is difficult to listen to Rock music these days, except for the more tranquil songs of Bob Dylan, Family, etc. Bob Dylan turned out to be conservative who voted for Goldwater in 1964 but kept quiet and elusive through all those years! And I love the 2005 DVD documentary about Bob Dylan by Martin Scorsese entitled "No Direction Home." (I briefly reviewed it in "Classic Movies and Documentaries" under Random Notes.)

There is a more contemporary Rock group that is fantastic. And they are conservative politically; they even helped the GOP with concerts. It's name is 3 Doors Down. Their first album was rock but mostly sad songs, but then they made it big, and subsequent albums, e.g. were more ebullient with more happy songs of confidence.

So the "Man with No Name," Clint Eastwood was correct: Not everyone in Hollywood and even in the Hard Rock business is liberal; they just must keep quiet or they get blackballed, more subtly and quietly, but actually more effectively that in the open and much-touted McCarthy years!

I have been wanting to mention all of this, and you gave me the opportunity! I also agree with the rest of your post and must grudgingly admit that given today's political milieu and economic meltdown, "Tears in Heaven" is a more and very appropriate song! – MAF

Diary of Dreams performs at the 2016 M’era Luna festival in Hildesheim, Germany. M’era Luna, “one of the biggest dark music events in Germany,” is held each year on the second weekend in August. Close to 25,000 people attend the festival annually to hear gothic, metal and industrial music performed on two large festival-style stages.